The armchair psychologist (without a degree) within me says that P&C was challenging his own character. He has an anger problem, as do many of us...and he wanted to find some wisdom to support his questions...but not so much for school as for his belief and view on life. Going to an anonymous forum on the internet is a safe place to rant..until you get suspended.

In a way, I suspect that Faith is similar...she has an internal cognitive dissonance that she cannot and will not give up under any circumstances.

To be honest, I am the same way regarding not only whether Jesus existed (He Had To!) or whether Jesus is God (If not, that shoots my whole boat full of holes and I may as well sink into the nasty sea of agnosticism..)

Honestly though...my faith remains. I couldnt live without it very easily.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

To be honest, I am the same way regarding not only whether Jesus existed (He Had To!) or whether Jesus is God (If not, that shoots my whole boat full of holes and I may as well sink into the nasty sea of agnosticism..)

I think there is a difference between a belief held in the absence of evidence (faith) and a belief held in contradiction to mountains of evidence (denial, cognitive dissonance).

Your belief in Jesus and God is based on faith. It isn't contradicted by evidence, it merely lacks it. The disagreement between atheists and theists is focused around the idea that faith is not a reliable method for finding knowledge.

That differs greatly from denial. Many theists and atheists agree that we should ditch beliefs that are contradicted by evidence. This is why many theists accept evolution and the old age of the Earth.

Overall, we should be cognizant of where our disagreements lie, and where we agree.

I like to distinguish between the process of evolution and the theory of evolution.

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis

Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Thus many known and observed processes of evolution are observed, known objective empirical facts, and not untested hypothesies.

No other process has ever been observed changing hereditary traits or creating new species without these mechanisms. None.

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

The theory is not fact (no theory is), but it is heavily supported my evidence and the testing of predicted outcomes. As a result we can have high confidence that it will continue to meet predictable expectations, that it will continue to explain evidence and inform choices based on the theory being valid.

It is highly unlikely that any new discovery could overturn the entire theory. A new and different mechanism may be found, but then, as a natural process, it would be incorporated into a slightly modified version of the theory. This is what has been happening for the last 150 years as new mechanisms are discovered or detailed. Genetic Drift for instance, was not in the original theory (nor was any of the genetic processes).

Add to this the deliberate evolutionary frauds that have been presented to the mainstream as fact. Pitdown man. Nebraska man. Java man. U guys heard of these ye? A willingness and drive to fabricate evidence. That's extreme.

Who uncovered the frauds and misrepresentations? Scientists or laymen? Who published the "news" (including pictures) about the frauds? Scientists or laymen?

I should have said the creationist claims about it were debunked. From my link:

quote: Many creationists have claimed that Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893, was "bad science". Gish (1985) says that Dubois found two human skulls at nearby Wadjak at about the same level and had kept them secret; that Dubois later decided Java Man was a giant gibbon; and that the bones do not come from the same individual. Most people would find Gish's meaning of "nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles (104 km) of mountainous countryside away from Java Man. Similarly for "at approximately the same level": the Wadjak skulls were found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was found in river deposits in a flood plain (Fezer 1993). Nor is it true, as is often claimed, that Dubois kept the existence of the Wadjak skulls secret because knowledge of them would have discredited Java Man. Dubois briefly reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications in 1890 and 1892. Despite being corrected on this in a debate in 1982 and in print (Brace 1986), Gish has continued to make this claim, even stating, despite not having apparently read Dubois' reports, that they did not mention the Wadjak skulls (Fezer 1993).

As long as we're armchair psychoanalyzing ... Besides the usual teenage rebellion and his knowing everything, this could also include factors of Porky's reaction to his parents' concerns and warnings as they see him being sucked into a cult, namely into fundamentalist Christianity by way of creationism. And being Catholics having to live amidst fundamentalist Christians, his parents would be well aware of their predatory practices.

First, that he's being proselytized is evident from his consumption of creationist materials and his adoption of creationist arguments, misdefinitions, and attitudes (eg, the false dichotomy of believers all being creationists and of those who accept evolution as all being atheists). Add to that the extreme defensiveness he displays whenever we show that a creationist claim is false or that creationists use dishonest methods.

For supporting evidence of creationist proselytizing tactics, we first have the testimony of Bill Morgan, a local creationist activist and the worst pathological liar and lowest form of Christian that I have ever had the displeasure of encountering -- he makes even Donald Trump look like a saint who never lies. He claims to have been an atheist (actually he was only pretending to be one in order to misbehave without guilt; he also admits to praying to God every night, therefore not an atheist) and describes his conversion in a local magazine article, Bill Morgan Is Captain Creationist: The activist is waging a war against evolution, one lecture at a time by Adam O'Neal (OC Weekly, 30 August 2012):

quote:One day in 1987, his roommate showed him a short Christian comic that explained creationism. Morgan was "stunned" the comic's author, the late Dr. Bolton Davidheiser, had a Ph.D. in zoology from Johns Hopkins. He spent several months reading creationist literature, as well as textbooks about evolution, eventually concluding "how awful the fossil evidence was for ape-man to man evolution." Academics were betraying the truth, he felt, which partially inspired him to become more of an activist than a silent believer. On June 12, 1989, Bill Morgan decided he was a Christian and was going to start living like one—almost two years after becoming a creationist.

Bill Morgan's main method of proselytizing is through creationism, nor is he the only one. Creationist claims are a very frequent and common proselytizing tool. And once they have you convinced of creationism, then the next step is to trick you into accepting their god as the "unnamed Creator" of "creation science". Note the two-year gap of that step in their converting Bill Morgan.

We do not know how long Porky has been at university, not the religious climate there. In the USA, almost all college and university campuses have student clubs and they all have Christian clubs (ie, I know of no exceptions to that generalization). When I was attending full-time in the 1970's, they were everywhere, but I just considered them a nuisance (I had already received my fundamentalist training, during which I found very good reason to reject their theology). But I didn't realize how mercenary they were until later.

Todd, the son of my boss around 1990, was third-generation fundamentalist. He attended university out of state (like 2000 miles away from home). When he was working with us during the first break of his first year (Xmas here), he mentioned that the hardest part of his first semester was being alone, so, remembering how ubiquitous Christian campus clubs were, I suggested that he check them out for fellowship. He had tried that already and he was thoroughly disgusted with them. He reported that all those clubs did was plan how to convert the rest of the student body.

So then, the situation could be that campus Christians have marked Porky for conversion and have started working on him. And it could very well be his new friends who are working on him.

Fundamentalists will use just about any trick they can in order to convert you, including becoming your best friend (or lover) -- it works for spies to recruit assests. Many times on a forum or in an email exchange, a creationist would try to become friends with me, only to lose all interest when it finally became clear that I am immune to their efforts. I also know personally of a personal story. There were two girls, best friends, in my French class in my first semester at college, one of whom (Pat) was well known as "that Jesus-freaky chick" (1. that was in the midst of the Jesus Freak movement in nearby Costa Mesa and 2. she later married my wife's brother, who had converted to fundamentalism and nearly destroyed the family in the process). I came across the other girl, Lisa, 20 years later at an atheist group. Lisa told me how Pat was her best friend and kept trying to get her to go to church with her until finally one day Lisa let Pat know that she would never convert, after which Pat disappeared completely from Lisa's life. All that Pat was interested in was racking up more Brownie points for gaining a new convert.

A new girl friend basically using sex to lure a 19-year-old boy into the clutches of her cult is not out of the question. It's perhaps the oldest trick in the book and one that is well-known to all Departments of Dirty Tricks (eg, spy organizations -- see "The Same Sky" on NetFlix about Stasi seduction training and operations in West Berlin in 1974). Is she really into you or does she just want to steal your soul?

Of course, it's just speculation that that has anything to do with Porky's situation. But we do know how they work. And we can plainly see how much Porky has already been indoctrinated.

So then, the situation could be that campus Christians have marked Porky for conversion and have started working on him. And it could very well be his new friends who are working on him.

Oh wow! Your hypothesis is way different than what I was assuming..(though plausible in hypotheticals) as I had P&C having been raised in a fundamentalist home and rebelling against it in general...blowing up at his parents and attempting to debunk the literalism of the Bible...then later feeling guilty and attempting to find a middle path here at this forum...But you could be right, I never thought of that scenario.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

In one of his first messages, he mentioned that he was from a Catholic family, but was now "agnostic" (even though he keeps railing against "atheists" using typical fundamentalist stereotypes, just like he claims to not be a creationist even though almost everything he posts is purely creationist).

Not sure why I kept to espionage examples -- for some reason my security training kicked in (military). The same kind of recruitment tactics and techniques are also used by cults to lure in new members. Be friendly, accepting assuring, loving, which can be especially effective on victims who feel lonely, unaccepted, or in any way alienated. That would have been a far better example, since we are effectively talking about a cult, fundamentalist Christianity, especially as it isolates its members in an alternate reality. Part of a cult's recruitment efforts involves separating their victims from family and former friends who themselves resist conversion; in the case of the fundamentalist cult, that would be justified by Matthew 10:34-35 (KJV):

quote:10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

As with the example I gave of my brother-in-law's conversion, that nearly tore that close loving family apart. His mother finally had to forbid any discussion of religion at all. And she enforced that rule without exception.

And my description of the bad actors was perhaps harsh. Of course there are those who are coldly calculating mercenaries who only pretend to befriend you or fall in love with you in order to pull off their swindle -- I know that because I have encountered them. But I'm sure that most of them who befriend you actually want to become your friend and that their efforts to then convert you are usually because they actually think that it is for your own good. In those cases, a test of how true that friendship is will come when you don't convert. Will they still be your friend? In the case I gave before of Pat and Lisa, obviously Pat's friendship for Lisa was not true. And to add insult to injury, I ended up getting Pat as a sister-in-law.

While the fundamentalists do have some professional proselytizers who knowingly practice deception, most of their proselytizing is performed by amateurs who don't know any better and are acting with good intentions. Still, good intentions can cause considerable harm.

Great detective work! I missed that he was raised Catholic. Given that, your scenario makes more sense than mine...pork n cheese if you are reading this, chime in. We are most certainly not out to recruit you, and we do respect Catholics...well most of us!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

How wonderful to see an honest to goodness creo meltdown on EvC after so long.

*sniff*

Brings a tear to my eye.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

You all are being condescending towards him. Yes, I know he did the same to you, but you are simply confirming his disdain for this place. Show a little respect, gentlemen. We are not out to tear apart newbies, are we? How do expect anyone to aspire to want to come back with talk like this?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler